Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509798 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> 2009-07-07 04:42:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Any reason the name is so terribly long? We already have msp430-binutils, > spu-binutils and mingw32-* which seems to give precedence to > armv5ejl-binutils, > unless you expect to actually need to package binutils for some OS other than > linux or some particular variant other than "unknown". I'm afraid that these cross-tools are named wrong (except mingw, which is different). Cross-toolchain should inform potential user about processor architecture it designed for (armv5tejl), target (linux) and binary format (GNU EABI). I think, that only "unknown" part may be omitted, but I feel that it's better to rename it to something like "fedora" (not "redhat", as Adam suggested). For example, if someone will develop bootloaders for arm-platforms, then he should obtain two different cross-toolchains. One - for developing Linux kernel and user-space applications (which is exactly what I submitted) and another - for developing "bare-metal" applications, such as bootloaders. See these links for the details: http://www.codesourcery.com/sgpp/lite/arm/portal/release8...@template=datasheet http://www.codesourcery.com/sgpp/lite/arm/portal/release8...@template=datasheet That's why we should specify explicitly what exact type of cross-toolchains we're providing. I didn't dig into details yet, but it seems that conventional gcc tries to link by default with libraries and routines, which cannot be used at the boot-stage (for example, in my case, it tries to link with code for trapping division by zero). I would like to remind you, that I'm still not an authoritative person in developing for ARM, so I can be wrong in some particular details. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review